I want to prove that $\nabla\times(\nabla\times \boldsymbol{A}) = \nabla(\nabla\cdot\boldsymbol{A}) - \nabla^2\boldsymbol{A}$ using the Levi Civita. This is solved considering the $i$-th component of $\nabla\times(\nabla\times \boldsymbol{A})$. But I was performing the calculation and don't know where my mistake is:

\begin{align} \nabla\times(\nabla\times \boldsymbol{A}) &= \nabla \times (\epsilon_{ijk}\hat{e}_i\nabla_jA_k) =\epsilon_{lmn}\hat{e}_l\nabla_m(\epsilon_{ijk}\hat{e}_i\nabla_jA_k)_n\\ &=\epsilon_{lmn}\hat{e}_l\nabla_m\epsilon_{njk}\nabla_jA_k = \epsilon_{lmn}\epsilon_{njk}\hat{e}_l\nabla_m\nabla_jA_k\\ &=(\delta_{lk}\delta_{mj} - \delta_{km}\delta_{lj})\hat{e}_l\nabla_m\nabla_jA_k\\ &=\hat{e}_l\nabla_m\nabla_mA_l - \hat{e}_l\nabla_m\nabla_lA_m = \nabla^2\boldsymbol{A} - \nabla(\nabla\cdot\boldsymbol{A}). \end{align}

I get the result but with a negative sign. The only part in which I may have done things badly is when taking the levi-civita product, but I'm pretty sure that I did that correctly.

Does somebody spot my mistake? I appreciate your effort.

  • $\begingroup$ The bracket with the deltas appears to be the wrong way round, and this is where the errant minus sign is coming from $\endgroup$ – David Quinn Feb 21 '16 at 23:16
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidQuinn but if you compute $\epsilon_{lmn}\epsilon_{njk}$ with the determinant you get the expression of deltas I wrote. $\endgroup$ – Vladimir Vargas Feb 21 '16 at 23:21
  • $\begingroup$ So shouldn't that be $\delta_{lj}\delta_{mk}-\delta_{lk}\delta_{mj}$? $\endgroup$ – David Quinn Feb 21 '16 at 23:29
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidQuinn look, here there is a picture of how I computed the determinant: postimg.org/image/sswnt7qmv $\endgroup$ – Vladimir Vargas Feb 21 '16 at 23:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The mistake is indeed in computing the determinant. Try to expand the determinant first and then contract the $n$ index in the end (you seem to be doing both at once). For example you seem to have taken $\delta_{nn} = 1$ but this term should be $3 = \sum_{n=1}^3\delta_{nn}$. $\endgroup$ – Winther Feb 25 '16 at 14:07

In order to leave this question answered I will point out that @Winther's answer is correct. I took $\delta_{nn}=1$, but this term should be $3$, following the Einstein notation for summation.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.